Please, let's not compare Haneke, a dude who makes one film every two years, with Scorsese, who is involved in I've lost count of how many different projects and in different capacities each year. It's not a justification, but those are two completely different ways of living life, even. And if you ask me, Taxi Driver alone kicks haneke's complete filmography in the ass.

the digital vs film argument is really stupid. theyarelegion, you're saying that is not the same as dismissing films because they're widescreen, so I assume you do dismiss films because they're shot on digital. and that's just stupid. sorry. plenty of filmmakers have shown me to this day that using film or digital is not a deal breaker as far as how good a film can be is concerned. that's not to say I don't prefer the feel and look of film, but I won't point my finger at anyone who uses digital as some sort of hack. Scorsese is working non stop for the preservation of films, not of "film", what's important is the work of art.

scorsese is using digital now because his last film bombed and he just can't afford to use film anymore. the money people are saying "nope". if he could bring his budgets down in a reasonable way like malick, he could actually keep using film. but he won't. that's it.

Please, let's not compare Haneke, a dude who makes one film every two years, with Scorsese, who is involved in I've lost count of how many different projects and in different capacities each year. It's not a justification, but those are two completely different ways of living life, even. And if you ask me, Taxi Driver alone kicks haneke's complete filmography in the ass.

the digital vs film argument is really stupid. theyarelegion, you're saying that is not the same as dismissing films because they're widescreen, so I assume you do dismiss films because they're shot on digital. and that's just stupid. sorry. plenty of filmmakers have shown me to this day that using film or digital is not a deal breaker as far as how good a film can be is concerned. that's not to say I don't prefer the feel and look of film, but I won't point my finger at anyone who uses digital as some sort of hack. Scorsese is working non stop for the preservation of films, not of "film", what's important is the work of art.

scorsese is using digital now because his last film bombed and he just can't afford to use film anymore. the money people are saying "nope". if he could bring his budgets down in a reasonable way like malick, he could actually keep using film. but he won't. that's it.

In my opinion, the only people who have made Digital look Mind blowingly good are SODERBERGH and FINCHER. After that, everybody else's movie looks good but not as good as film.

With that said though, anybody that disregards a movie simply because is shot digitally is a fucking moron. A good movie is a good movie no matter what tools you use.

To be honest, I disagree with you guys about Scorsese, I think the movies he has made in the last 10 years (Gangs, aviator, departed, shutter island and Hugo) are some of the best movies made in this Era, Scorsese still got it. The problem is when you compare them to Goodfellas or Taxi driver or Mean streets or raging bull, obviously they don't look or feel as good because those are some of the BEST MOVIES EVER MADE. Same thing when you compare "war horse" to "Jaws".. "War horse" was really good but it doesn't compare. And I think that's a curse that these old masters have on them, people will always compare their new work to their old stuff and 99% of the time, their old stuff is better.

Very few artists get "better" as they get older, because that spark, that hunger isn't there anymore. Now they do it just to do it, most of the time is just for money. But Scorsese is NOT one of those people. His movies are still amazing and he's STILL bringing new things to the table and though I am not as excited about his movies as I once was, he still one of the few true MASTERS that we got left. Gotta appreciate that.

Please, let's not compare Haneke, a dude who makes one film every two years, with Scorsese, who is involved in I've lost count of how many different projects and in different capacities each year. It's not a justification, but those are two completely different ways of living life, even. And if you ask me, Taxi Driver alone kicks haneke's complete filmography in the ass.

the digital vs film argument is really stupid. theyarelegion, you're saying that is not the same as dismissing films because they're widescreen, so I assume you do dismiss films because they're shot on digital. and that's just stupid. sorry. plenty of filmmakers have shown me to this day that using film or digital is not a deal breaker as far as how good a film can be is concerned. that's not to say I don't prefer the feel and look of film, but I won't point my finger at anyone who uses digital as some sort of hack. Scorsese is working non stop for the preservation of films, not of "film", what's important is the work of art.

scorsese is using digital now because his last film bombed and he just can't afford to use film anymore. the money people are saying "nope". if he could bring his budgets down in a reasonable way like malick, he could actually keep using film. but he won't. that's it.

Never assume, Alexandro! I don't dismiss a movie because its been shot on digital, I'll just wish it had been shot on film. I will still see a movie shot on digital. It's not a deal breaker and I don't think digital filmmakers are hacks for it. Some directors prefer making their movies on digital because they like it and others do it because of budgetary constraints. I'm just part of the ever shrinking keep-film-alive club. I know that Scorsese isn't working for the preservation of film itself, his move to digital told me that.

I don't think that Scorsese is necessarily using digital just because he can't afford to use film anymore. I'm sure the budget for The Wolf of Wall Street could accomodate his request for it to be shot on film. I think he might just feel that film is dying on the vine with digital projectors being installed in most multiplexes around the world and wants to stay ahead of the curve. It will be interesting to see him collaborating with a new cinematographer in Rodrigo Prieto (Amores perros, the last couple of Ang Lee movies) on Wolf. Maybe it will spawn a fresh style for the movie and for Scorsese. Maybe I'll be crazy about The Wolf of Wall Street co-starring Jonah Hill, but we'll see...

To be honest, I disagree with you guys about Scorsese, I think the movies he has made in the last 10 years (Gangs, aviator, departed, shutter island and Hugo) are some of the best movies made in this Era, Scorsese still got it. The problem is when you compare them to Goodfellas or Taxi driver or Mean streets or raging bull, obviously they don't look or feel as good because those are some of the BEST MOVIES EVER MADE. Same thing when you compare "war horse" to "Jaws".. "War horse" was really good but it doesn't compare. And I think that's a curse that these old masters have on them, people will always compare their new work to their old stuff and 99% of the time, their old stuff is better.

Very few artists get "better" as they get older, because that spark, that hunger isn't there anymore. Now they do it just to do it, most of the time is just for money. But Scorsese is NOT one of those people. His movies are still amazing and he's STILL bringing new things to the table and though I am not as excited about his movies as I once was, he still one of the few true MASTERS that we got left. Gotta appreciate that.

I think that Scorsese's last great movie was The Aviator. That's a not-so-guilty pleasure of mine. I love it. He really got at something with that one and I don't think that it gets the credit it deserves. Gangs of New York before it was a misfire for me. The Departed is already aging sketchily with the gaping plot holes becoming harder to ignore... and I saw it in the cinema twelve times. I certainly liked it when it first came out but at that time I was becoming a fully-fledged Scorsese fanatic and earning my stripes. I was chuffed just to see A Martin Scorsese Picture on the big screen for the first time so I love it just for that. If I never saw Shutter Island again that would be fine. Hugo wasn't a great, era-defining picture but I enjoyed it for the cinematography and when it shifted focus to cinema and its beginnings it was a joy to watch. I don't expect his output to be a constant stream of Taxi Driver's and Raging Bull's and they are indeed some of the best movies ever made. He doesn't have to prove himself to anyone, his backlog of classics do that for him. I just wish he was still striving to be brilliant and have a serious, relevant place in world cinema instead of advancing towards making entertainment movies.

Wow, the self-righteousness of this thread stinks of expensive cheese.

Scorsese is turning 70 this year and has a wife with Parkinson's and a 12 year-old. He had a mammoth tax lien as a result of being bilked by convicted accountant Kenneth Starr, but I guess none of you will ever have to worry about the financial well-being of your families. Good for you. I guess it's better to have your stuff sold on your front lawn post-mortem like Sammy Davis Jr.'s family had to suffer through. Or maybe you prefer the path taken by the late Andrew Breitbart's colleagues at Fox News holding their hats in their hands, begging viewers to send in alms to support his kids.

I haven't even mentioned that The Film Foundation also benefits from these sell-out adverts. Anyway, have a nice trip down the low road.

That said, I agree. The definition of "selling out" is probably due for a re-evaluation. Martin Scorsese acting in a commercial truly fails to upset me in any way. It's a bigger issue when it starts to creep into your main body of work, with excessive product placement for example, or allowing your music to be used in a commercial for something morally objectionable.

Here are two perfect counter-examples. You can probably guess which one I approve of.

I didn't mean to make such a sweeping generalization that all artists get worse as they get older. But generally most filmmakers do reach a point of diminishing returns at some point, especially once they're in their freakin' 70s. Guys like Haneke and Kubrick and Altman are anomalies. Scorsese making choices based on paychecks or whatever doesn't absolve him of criticism. All I'm saying is we might be giving him more shit than he really deserves, given his age and track record. His recent shit isn't that shitty.

Wow, the self-righteousness of this thread stinks of expensive cheese.

Scorsese is turning 70 this year and has a wife with Parkinson's and a 12 year-old. He had a mammoth tax lien as a result of being bilked by convicted accountant Kenneth Starr, but I guess none of you will ever have to worry about the financial well-being of your families. Good for you. I guess it's better to have your stuff sold on your front lawn post-mortem like Sammy Davis Jr.'s family had to suffer through. Or maybe you prefer the path taken by the late Andrew Breitbart's colleagues at Fox News holding their hats in their hands, begging viewers to send in alms to support his kids.

I haven't even mentioned that The Film Foundation also benefits from these sell-out adverts. Anyway, have a nice trip down the low road.

At least it's expensive cheese, I guess.

I don't care one way or the other about Scorsese's shillification. So long as an artist isn't advertising for evil shit, I begrudge them none. It's very, very easy money in ridiculous quantity for like six hours of your time. You'd be a fool to resist it.

That said, trying to appeal to Scorsese's publicized financial trouble and his difficult home life to justify this decision is silly. Yes, he got fleeced for something like $3 million a little while back. But he's got PLENTY more where that came from. I think $3 million is what he got paid upfront for Gangs of New York alone. Lots of people at his age live through similar circumstances and don't have $3 million to lose. Unless he's secretly taken extreme measures to fuck up his assets, he's not doing ads because he's short on money. Mind also that he'd have a lot more money if so much of it didn't disappear up his nose through the 70s and 80s. Not that I have any problem with his habits (he made a lot of great films high), but, financially, it is what it is.

As far as his filmmaking goes, while I haven't personally enjoyed most of his recent output (save for the documentaries), I don't think they're bad films necessarily. From Gangs of New York on, he's worked almost exclusively on big, big movies. Not since New York, New York would he have had this much money behind his films and (possibly as a result of what happened with that movie, though more likely just the state of movies today) these sort of budgets impose enormous restrictions on the risks he's allowed to take. And so to ensure himself the enormous canvas he desires, he's made popular, mainstream films. Decent ones too when compared with much of what else is out there. I don't think they're purely paycheck jobs. There's passion behind them, no matter how misplaced. And, like I said, I don't think he needs money. He could easily get, say, $30 million to make Silence any time without any restrictions whatsoever. I guess he envisions something on a larger scale than that would afford and for something with such niche-y appeal, financing would be hard to come by. Even with his formidable reputation.

Haneke and Kubrick have a singularity of vision which the movie brat generation lacked from the get-go. They were too scattershot to ever hope for Kubrickian perfection. I don't think that was even their intention. I'm not sure Haneke is really, truly at Kubrick's level either (Funny Games, both the original and the remake are a bit of a mar on his record), but then, very few are. But he's still making good movies in old age, so I get what you mean. Altman, too, is often included in these discussion even though it's not entirely warranted. He ended strong, but made a bunch of kinda shitty movies. Has no one seen O.C. & Stiggs? Or The Gingerbread Man? Or Dr. T & the Women? I'm not saying they don't have their moments but they're nowhere near the films he made in the 70s. And I don't mean to knock the movie brat generation. Perhaps I'm in the minority, but I generally don't hate even their clunkiest shit. I almost hate Jack.

I just came back to mention that all in all, I've also enjoyed his last few films. The only one I don't think I will revisit soon (I already tried and failed to enjoy it) is Hugo. Something is really off with that one. But The Departed is a great thriller, and I find it truly funny and exciting, it's what ideally, commercial movies should be. I've seen it a bunch of times and it always does the trick.

Shutter Island is in a strange position, because I just can't believe the premise yet I find the film fascinating. I've seen it four times and I can easily watch it many more. It's just great filmmaking, I guess, and DiCaprio, who always gets a lot of shit from everyone, is in his usual excellence.